Posted on 09/26/2014 3:51:06 AM PDT by markomalley
With the mid-term elections weeks away, many conservatives are confronting a difficult choice. Assuming there are no solid conservatives on the ballot, do we vote for establishment candidates? Or not vote at all?
The reasons why some conservatives are on the fence or planning not to vote are well known. (And Democrats are loving every minute of it!)
I share these frustrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Republicans are tradionally lousy campaigners. Few of them study their enemy and do what works. College indoctrinated, they are taught to be ashamed of their stand on issues.
ya, that’s how they passed it in the full senate.
how did they get it out of committee?
What's pathetic about that era in the history of the Democrat Party is that the Clinton administration bullied the Democratic House and Senate to pass its infamous 1993 budget bill that ended up being a big factor in the "GOP revolution" of 1994. But when Clinton was running for re-election in 1996, he ran around on the campaign trail bawling his eyes out, claiming that he was forced to sign that bill by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate.
That was a pathetic bunch of losers. My biggest concern today is that I see a lot of that in the Republican Party right now.
Practice makes perfect. The primary system itself needs to be reformed. Then it works better.
Louisiana [for example] requires an actual majority vote to win. And states could also stop crossover votes during primaries. I don’t know the specifics, but primary reform is the key to empowering the voter more.
Because Obama has worked out so well for us?
“Apparently, one of the best-kept secrets of the 1990s was that Bill Clinton signed most of the items in Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” into law.”
Clinton wanted to spend-spend-spend his way out of a recession, but the GOP stopped him. He also wanted Healthcare reform [Hillary Care].
So even this ‘weak’ example works — there are major differences between the parties.
Excellent post!
Reid will go on to do an incredible amount of harm if allowed to remain in power. What’s wrong with campaigning on that?
McConnell has also said he would act to help the coal industry, get keystone passed, and re instate the 40 hour work week among other things. You must have missed that. Having a senate leader working on that stuff is far better than Reid who would continue to be cahoots with Obama on every single issue.
I
And when Obama wanted to spend his way out of the Obama recession and the GOPe said no....
er wait.. that’s not how it went now is it?
By '$5 bill' I assume you mean a bill for $5, to make an accurate analogy.
There's more than one way to exercise power and exert force. Until that primary reform happens, it appears our only choices are to employ alternate methods or put our tail between our legs and go back to the plantation. Suggestions?
Because Obama has worked out so well for us?
and the GOPe controlled house has done so much to stop him.
er wait..
Good point. But how much would old BO be spending if he had the House and Senate all this time?
And primary fights will get better as the primary system is itself reformed at the state level.
Losers take their toys and go home. Winners prepare, plan, and learn from mistakes.
Obama ran as a ‘blank slate novelty’. It can work. Not necessary for conservative issues, but better than nothing.
Same here. I will never sit out another election, especially a national election. No way will I ever vote for another candidate with a (d) behind their name. I don't care if it is for city pooper scooper.
There were a lot of so called Republicans who stayed home and 'wanted to teach the GOPe a lesson', including many on this board. What did that get them? Another four years for 0bummer to destroy America.
One GOP senator voted it out of committee.
Meanwhile EVERY democrat voted for it on the floor and the GOP unanimously voted against it. So the one vote in committee is reason to give the democraps even MORE power?
If it wasn’t that one, it’d have been another or an entire “gang” of them. The GOP has no shortage of RINOs eager to advance the progressive agenda.
No, the Maine sisters are among the most liberal. Not all repub senators would have voted that way. Far from it.
That strategy might well be a bad one for the establishment. The reason Romney won the nomination last time was that he was the only moderate, establishment candidate while there were many other candidates competing for conservative support (Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, etc.). The conservative candidates split the conservative ABR (anyone but Romney) vote and allowed Romney to win.
If the GOP-e is actually trying to win by fielding multiple candidates, let them. It is then incumbent on us to come together to support ONE candidate (maybe Cruz?) and take the nomination by splitting the establishment support.
Mark Levin is onto something with the Liberty Amendments. But of course, that requires massive public support.
Everytime you make someone laugh, you have someone who will listen to you. It is the poor man’s ‘political capital’. And every time you spend that capital on a leftist outrage, you add another tooth to the shark. Eventually, you have a swarm of Great Whites tearing away at the DNC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.